News How far down will Bush go; how far should he go?

[Ivan Seeking]

Re: Re: How far down will Bush go; how far should he go?

Originally posted by phatmonky
On what ground will you charge him with war crimes??

Invading a sovereign nation without provocation.

The war is legal, even if it's simply based on the fact that it can be considered a continuation of the first gulf war (due to the lack of criteria met for a continuance of the cease fire).

I think not. This is the point of the WMD claims controversy. This was our legal reason to attack.

Just over 500 Americans, and about 10-15,000 Iraqis.

Where did they find the other 450,000 Iraqis - again, based on the Pentagons own numbers at the wars end? How much do you think was found at sites where bunker busters were used? Could the numbers be played down now for political reasons…as is done in every war? Case in point about war lies; remember the oh so successful patriot missiles from Gulf I that really didn't work?

It was shock and awe alright! They were sure proud of their big bombs weren't they?

I still support the war, but if false evidence was use, I fully support reprecussions to the link in the chain that caused it. However I'm not sitting here just looking for an excuse to blame Bush :)

He is the commander and chief. He apparently misrepresented the evidence in order to foster support for the war; this based on the latest testimony from the CIA to congress. He forced this war on the entire world and now he wants to place the blame elsewhere. I didn't trust the reasons for the war because it was Bush. Now it seems that my instincts and opinions were correct. Unfortunately I also agree with Njorl; what I would like to see and what will happen are two very different things. Still, we have seen at least one president go down for less.

 

[NateTG]

I think not. This is the point of the WMD claims controversy. This was our legal reason to attack.

Not that I care for Bush, but, illegal or legal, who cares, it's war. It's a much bigger problem that there were pushovers in the Senate that let him get away with it.

A big part of the problem is that the government is failing in the sense that the safeguards that were installed 200 years ago are being bypassed.

I don't agree with Bush's policies, most specifically the blurring of seperation of church and state, but the war, and the so called Patriot act are both the result of corroboration between the Senate and the White House, and placing the blame for them entirely on Bush is incorrect.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by NateTG
Not that I care for Bush, but, illegal or legal, who cares, it's war. It's a much bigger problem that there were pushovers in the Senate that let him get away with it.

Well, darn! I don't want to believe that our system has failed so miserably. I can only hope that they were genuinely misled.

A big part of the problem is that the government is failing in the sense that the safeguards that were installed 200 years ago are being bypassed.

Now don't get me started...I can only handle one or two rants per day! But since you mention it, why don't we "declare" wars any more? Hmmm.

I don't agree with Bush's policies, most specifically the blurring of separation of church and state, but the war, and the so called Patriot act are both the result of corroboration between the Senate and the White House, and placing the blame for them entirely on Bush is incorrect.

Now you're really getting me mad! I know. Still, Bush led the charge and I see him as the one to be held accountable; as commander and chief. In the end only Bush had the authority to start or avoid this action. Still, if I was to express my deepest concerns on this issue I would be up all night. My hope is that the weasely politicians have conceded to fear and popular opinion, and not that we have a complete failure of constitutional law on our hands.

So many people seem to completely lack an appreciation for the essence of us - the U.S. Constitution. I am appalled at how many people seem to think that this is only a superficial concern. My cousin’s comments I think typify the popular opinion - it [the war] may have been wrong…technically…but that’s okay as long as the cause was just. IMO this attitude IS the greatest threat to our country. This is why I'm so angry...like fools we’re giving it all away to those in power. This is why I oppose the Bush's so vehemently: I have no doubt that the Bush's will do whatever they think is best; regardless of constitutional law. There is no greater threat.... Again, soldiers are sworn to defend the Constitution; not to support the current president or his policies. How much more simple can it be?

 

[phatmonky]

Re: Re: Re: How far down will Bush go; how far should he go?

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
1>Invading a sovereign nation without provocation.



2>I think not. This is the point of the WMD claims controversy. This was our legal reason to attack.



3>Where did they find the other 450,000 Iraqis - again, based on the Pentagons own numbers at the wars end? How much do you think was found at sites where bunker busters were used? Could the numbers be played down now for political reasons…as is done in every war? Case in point about war lies; remember the oh so successful patriot missiles from Gulf I that really didn't work?

It was shock and awe alright! They were sure proud of their big bombs weren't they?



4>He is the commander and chief. He apparently misrepresented the evidence in order to foster support for the war; this based on the latest testimony from the CIA to congress. He forced this war on the entire world and now he wants to place the blame elsewhere. I didn't trust the reasons for the war because it was Bush. Now it seems that my instincts and opinions were correct. Unfortunately I also agree with Njorl; what I would like to see and what will happen are two very different things. Still, we have seen at least one president go down for less.

1>Without provacation? I would say that the signed ceasefire by Saddam would stand up in an international court. NO ONE, not even you, can argue that Saddam kept to his end of the bargain.
2>That was the reason for deciding to attack now. We could have legally gone in 6 months after the end of the first conflict based on the original armistice.
3>link? I posted my numbers FROM AN ANTIWAR SITE just to make sure you guys weren't able to pin this on political spin.
4>Well, at this point neither you nor myself know enough to make the decision on where the blame lies - unless simply by being the commander and chief, you automatically hold him personally responsible.

 

[Zero]

Re: Re: Re: Re: How far down will Bush go; how far should he go?

Originally posted by phatmonky

4>Well, at this point neither you nor myself know enough to make the decision on where the blame lies - unless simply by being the commander and chief, you automatically hold him personally responsible.

Well, isn't that what being president means?

 

[russ_watters]

Re: Re: Re: How far down will Bush go; how far should he go?

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Invading a sovereign nation without provocation.

Both Iraq's sovereignty and the provacation are easy enough to argue either way. Its unrealistic to think Bush could actually be convicted of anything for attacking Iraq.

I think not. This is the point of the WMD claims controversy. This was our legal reason to attack.

Legal reason or political exercise? International affairs is nowhere near as cut and dried as suing someone in court. Yeah, it would be nice if the UN worked that way, but it doesn't. And even if UN resolutions had teeth, we have a sufficiently vague UN resolution to condone our action.